Release Us!

[Frank Szabo]

There is a rift between the TULE membership. The loyal TWU and those who want a descent contract. It would be amazing if the votes were published by skill, but that is another story.

I've worked in a non-union shop before and understand they'd probably expect the employees to do something if there were a decertification.

The problem lies in the low quality of management presently on the floor and ivory towers that would, without a doubt, become vindictive in the worst way should there be a decertification. The only way decent workers could remain would be to support the illusion of work being done, propping up worthless soupervision.

 

[Buck]

I've worked in a non-union shop before and understand they'd probably expect the employees to do something.

The problem lies in the low quality of management presaently on the floor that would, without a doubt, become vindictive in the worst way should there be a decertification.

I agree, except the low quality does not stop at the floor, it goes up the stairs.

 

[Frank Szabo]

I agree, except the low quality does not stop at the floor, it goes up the stairs.

I noticed that and modified the post after you'd commented - very true.

 

[enough already]

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln

Credit where credit is due...

Proverbs 17:28
New International Version (NIV)


28 Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent,
and discerning if they hold their tongues.

 

[toroshark]

When Bob gives us his speculation (his own admission) on how the airline industry is financed.................

Now get off the forum and enjoy the 4th of July......I'm on OT..........

I would have been making double time if we passed the TA, we're down $6k and counting. I hope the next TA proves me wrong, but I doubt it. Unless we get full retro, we will never make up that money.

And everyone under 50 still has their retiree medical also.

 

[Buck]

And everyone under 50 still has their retiree medical also.

What, how did that happen?

 

[Vortilon]

The flip flopper returns. Welcome back. Which union are we backing now?

Bob has stated outsourcing is not cheaper but has given no facts other than anyone who states otherwise is talking like management (mis-direction).

Blames the Int'l for dictating the votes on the Committee, if that was the case it's not the Int'l, it is the very Presidents that were directly elected. They can always vote no. They are either weak or understand the gravity of the situation.

States only half the truth when referring to other's pay. Never once discussed that a contract must be viewed as a whole and not as stand alone parts. Everyone he quotes as getting paid higher have major outsourcing of overhaul.

Stated that the TWU started the B-Scale. Not true. Read below about the APA under the direction of AMFA counsel Seham.

American Airlines adopted the benchmark B-scale in November 1983, permanently reducing pay for newly hired pilots by 50 percent. In fact, under the AA system—negotiated while the Seham firm sat on the labor side of the table—pay rates and pensions for new employees would never merge with those of then-current employees.

Martin Seham wrote proudly of this accomplishment in Cleared for Takeoff: Airline Labor Relations Since Deregulation.

As general counsel to the Allied Pilots Association (APA), the independent certified representative of the American Airlines pilots, I was close to the negotiations that resulted, in 1983, in one of the earliest realization of the two-tier system. APA was not faced with an insolvent or failing carrier; it was, however, forced to deal with an economic environment that had changed dramatically because of the effects of deregulation and was, by virtue of its independence, mandated to reach an agreement consistent with the needs and objectives of its constituency.

—Martin C. Seham

Although B-scales were not a new concept, their initial format was unique to the airline industry. Following American’s lead, other airlines began to demand similar packages—forcing the entire airline labor movement into a new era of concessions. Good for management; bad for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, and all of the airline industry’s workers.

There is a ton more. Ten plus years of BS its hard to figure out the web of half-truths that make up Mr. Owens.

Well look at this, some newb shows up on the board, and all of a sudden knows everything. I don't need to defend Bob; however, I will say I appreciate his efforts to bring to light the AMTs side of the argument for better pay and benefits. The International is 100% to blame for all of our losses. Why not have observers to the negotiations like the AMFA or what AMP proposes? The answer is that the international doesn't want us (the dues paying) members to see and hear what is really going on. That fact alone, tells me they have something to hide. There has been no strategy from the international during this whole process. The internationals best effort is to quote to the membership, negative industry reports about the bad economy, the high fuel costs etc.. All this in an effort to lower our expectations. Problem is, we the membership are fed up with the lack of representation for our bargaining unit. Nobody speaks highly of any of these posers in the international, from Little on down. Just remember you international clowns, what goes around comes around. Payback for a substandard TA will be a b###h.

 

[Duke787]

Well look at this, some newb shows up on the board, and all of a sudden knows everything. I don't need to defend Bob; however, I will say I appreciate his efforts to bring to light the AMTs side of the argument for better pay and benefits. The International is 100% to blame for all of our losses. Why not have observers to the negotiations like the AMFA or what AMP proposes? The answer is that the international doesn't want us (the dues paying) members to see and hear what is really going on. That fact alone, tells me they have something to hide. There has been no strategy from the international during this whole process. The internationals best effort is to quote to the membership, negative industry reports about the bad economy, the high fuel costs etc.. All this in an effort to lower our expectations. Problem is, we the membership are fed up with the lack of representation for our bargaining unit. Nobody speaks highly of any of these posers in the international, from Little on down. Just remember you international clowns, what goes around comes around. Payback for a substandard TA will be a b###h.

The international is not negotiating this contract, our negotiating team is. Our pay cuts were voted in by OUR union. I appreciate Bob and the rest of the team for stepping into the breach, but I don't agree with Bob about his attack on the other presidents and negotiators. I don't think Bob should be misrepresenting what he thinks AA spends on OH or A/C purchase's.

I figure TUL/AFW should be glad that the TWU was involved in the 2003 contract other wise bankruptcy and a closure of our OH bases like the other airlines. If OH was cheaper to do in house, all the other airlines would have kept it in house. I'm sure no one knows that better then CFO's of those airlines, not some mechanic from a rival airline.

If a substandard TA is brought back, that will be our negotiation team.

 

[Overspeed]

I think I've repeatedly stated that we dont get the information needed to determine whether or not outsourcing costs more or less. I've repeatedly stated that Arpey could not even answer that question but the companys behavior indicates that when all is factored in its not cheaper to outsource and thats why AA has continued to increase its insourcing. Such a conclusion on the existance of something we cant see, based upon its affect on things we can see isnt 100% proof but it is an accepted theory in both science, and religion.



So I guess thats the reason why Don will always cite how much it costs the company when fuel goes up a penny a gallon but never cite how much the company collects in baggage fees or all the fare increases to pay for the fuel. The fact is I've been hearing from the International for eight years about how the company is going to file BK "Its not a question of if but when". Yet here we are eight years later, with talk about a $15 billion aircraft order and International officials are running around saying that our table position which only takes back a little more than half of what we gave up eight years ago is too much to ask for. The fact is this is the airline industry, the situation is always grave. The fact that you like to avoid is that revenues have increased dramatically over the last eight years, not all of those revenues were eaten up by fuel because at the same time the company has slashed the number of employees it has by thousands and cut its fleet by hundreds.



TWU started it for mechanics. More should be expected of an AFL-CIO affilated Union than a small independant union like the APA, isnt that so?
If you want to get technical the first B-Scale I read of was by Julius Ceasar but the TWU was the first to voluntarily bring it to Aircraft Mechanics.




You've been reading my stuff for 10 years yet you only decided to jump in to the debates a week ago? Somehow I get the feeling that you've posted before but under some other discredited alias.

That claim of "half truths" seems to always come from people who do it more than anyone. So far you havent produced one example.

So as far as the contract who other than AA does not have major outsourcing of OH and since there isnt anyone else then how are we supposed to make a comparasion? The fact is that USAIR, UAL and Delta, the three legacy carriers that filed BK and do have major outsourcing of OH are and have been accepted comparators while other carriers like SWA for some reason were excluded. When I first got to negotiations and brought up SWA I was given that same tired line of "We cant compare to SWA because they dont do OH", well neither do USAIR, UAL or Delta. So tell me if we are the only ones that do OH why should we just limit comparing ourselves to carriers that went BK? Why shouldnt we pick the position thats most favorable to us and let the company make their arguement? Do you think for one moment that they wont hesitate to Cherry Pick? They do it all the time. Like when they offered what Bobby Gless said was an "industry leading proposal" that "the SWA guys would have killed for" , Retiree Medical. The company claimed it was conceptually similar to plans in place at Southwest and Continental, where workers had been getting twelve days of sick time for most if not all their careers, not 10, 12 for one year and 5 for the last eight years, and those carriers would only charge 11 or 12 hours per month for coveraghe locked in whereas ours was 20 hours per month with the ability to raise that in two years. *

When you say whole package are you referring to the way the company throws it out there? You know how AA spends more on labor than other carriers. Are you saying that despite the fact that we do it in house that we should strive to have the same total labor costs as competitors who pay more to outside vendors to do that labor? Because we both know thats unreasonable. You come here and trash SWA for allowing a limited amount of outsourced work to be outsouced overseas which they did in exchange for bringing more work in house, work they never had before, that get done right along side USAIR planes, yet you leave out the fact that the TWU has not put any limitations on where AA can send their outsourced work. Is that an omision by design or a half truth? Or are you saying that we as individual workers should sell our labor at a discount so AA can employ more workers (and the TWU can have more dues payers)?

Whats really amusing is that people such as yourself come here and try to claim the moral high ground, make accusations of half tuths while at the same time identifying yourself under an alias, in other words concealing the tuth, making anything you post suspect, and employing the very same tactics you accuse me of such as putting forth information that supports your position and leaving it up to your opponent to produce counter information. When your counter information collapses you make accusations of "half truths". In other words you employ the tactics of FOX NEWS.

Now anyone has the right to come here and use an alias but there is more than a tinge of hypocrisy when charges of half truths are hurled from someone hiding behind one.

Your type comes here and claims that because I'm an elected officer that I should not speak unless its cleared by a Committee that exists at the sole discretion of the TWU International and that every statement I make should be deviod of personal opinion. Well maybe thats your view, your opinion on how an elected official should act, but in my opinion thats not how one should act, that there should be an open exchange of information, opinions and an engagement with the members who can give their input. You would likely say that should take place at Union Meetings, and while some information and discussions should be shielded from management, who hear about it anyway from their rats, the fact is that Union meetings are sparsely attended, we have to find different ways to engage the members, unless of course you feel that the way we've done it for the last 30 years has produced adequate results. I dont. I feel that the status quo of keeping the members in the dark and allowing ourselves to be limited to expessing ourselves in a forum controlled by the International has produced inadequate results and we need to do things differently if we want different results. In the end the members will decide whether they want me to do as I've done or not, in fact they dont have to wait because we put recall in our Bylaws, something the International blocked as far as Recall for International Officers at the last Convention. But I suppose you feel I should just accept that as well and not discuss it either.

* Two 25 year employees, one at AA the other at SWA or CAL
SAW/CAL 12 days per year after 25 years they were afforded 300 sick days to use or bank
AA employee
-10 days per year from 1986 to 2001 =150 days
-2002 12 days
-2003 -2011 5 days per year=40 days
150+12+40=202 daysSo over a 25 year span the AA employee was afforded 98 days, or 784 hours lessof sick time to use or bank,
AA admitted that mechanics averge 5.1 days per year sick. So over 25 years thats 127.5 days.
SWA/CAL 300days-127.5 average usage=172.5 days or 1380 hrs, he would have enough sick time to buy between 115 and 125 Months of coverage (12 hrs /month or 11hrs/month)
AA 202days -127.5= 74.5days or 596 hrs, he would have enough sick time to buy 29.8 months of coverage providing AA did not decide at its sole discretion to increase the niumber of hours per month.

So how is the AA plan industry leading? After 25 years and average usage our peers at SWA and CAL would have enough sick time in the bank to buy 10 years of coverage while the mechanic at AA would only have enough to buy less than two and a half.

If you were 49 and the TA passed at AA, even if you had perfect attendance the most you could bank up to the failed TA was 1200hrs, or 60 months of coverage. If you continued to have perfect attendance to 55 you would only be able to buy 16 more months of coverage at the current proposed rate (which can go up without being negotiated after the amendable date). So in other words the "retire at 55 option"is out the window as well, there is no way you could accumulate enough sick time to buy the coverage till normal retirement age. You would have to buy it out of pocket.Thats with perfect attendance for your entire career. In the meantime peers at SWA and CAL may not have the 55 option but they could have had normal usage, even above average, and more than enough coverage to retire at 60. We would have to have perfect attendance for the majority of our careers and no serious injuries or illneses, our peers however have rapid reaccrual under those circumstances .

Bob,
I gave more than adequate examples. Your own attempts to counter are false.

Outsourcing is cheaper unless you can figure a way to do it more efficiently in house. If overhead is the same, say $30/hr and the labor costs are wages of $32/hour how could it not be cheaper if you outsourced that same work to someone who gets paid $25/hour or less? Are you saying the work is inferior? Prove it. So based on wages alone outsourcing is cheaper.

I am not bashing SWA. They took a different approach and it involves heavy outsourcing. All engines and components with a large percentage of outsourcing airframe overhaul. What work did SWA bring in?

Yes I think you should not be telegraphing the next move of our negotiating committee on the internet. I think you should stop with broadcasting how screwed up you guys are in committee to the company.

 

[Mr Red]

Bob,
I gave more than adequate examples. Your own attempts to counter are false.

Outsourcing is cheaper unless you can figure a way to do it more efficiently in house. If overhead is the same, say $30/hr and the labor costs are wages of $32/hour how could it not be cheaper if you outsourced that same work to someone who gets paid $25/hour or less? Are you saying the work is inferior? Prove it. So based on wages alone outsourcing is cheaper.

I am not bashing SWA. They took a different approach and it involves heavy outsourcing. All engines and components with a large percentage of outsourcing airframe overhaul. What work did SWA bring in?

Yes I think you should not be telegraphing the next move of our negotiating committee on the internet. I think you should stop with broadcasting how screwed up you guys are in committee to the company.

If you think American Airlines can outsourse maint on the oldest fleet in the US any cheaper, your just WRONG! We have the most knowledgeble,experienced workforce in the world on the S-80 alone !!! Anyone thats worked 3rd party maint knows how it works.
You have 500 E-58s that get worked at AA ,At 3rd party it gets trimmed down to maybe 350 because thats how it works!
Some people call that INFERIOR !

 

[Hopeful]

If you think American Airlines can outsourse maint on the oldest fleet in the US any cheaper, your just WRONG! We have the most knowledgeble,experienced workforce in the world on the S-80 alone !!! Anyone thats worked 3rd party maint knows how it works.
You have 500 E-58s that get worked at AA ,At 3rd party it gets trimmed down to maybe 350 because thats how it works!
Some people call that INFERIOR !

THERE IS NO COMPETING WITH COUNTRIES WHO PAY THEIR WORKERS $2-$3 DOLLARS AN HOUR!

 

[MCI transplant]

THERE IS NO COMPETING WITH COUNTRIES WHO PAY THEIR WORKERS $2-$3 DOLLARS AN HOUR!

<_< ------- So where is "Fair Trade" in the concept of "Free Trade"? Why do you think we're in the position we are today?------- Remember when Uncle Ross was running for President? He said "you'll heard a great sucking sound that will be jobs leaving this country if we pass NAFTA"!------- Well, guess what? He was right!!! :angry:

 

[Interested]

Bob,
I gave more than adequate examples. Your own attempts to counter are false.

Outsourcing is cheaper unless you can figure a way to do it more efficiently in house. If overhead is the same, say $30/hr and the labor costs are wages of $32/hour how could it not be cheaper if you outsourced that same work to someone who gets paid $25/hour or less? Are you saying the work is inferior? Prove it. So based on wages alone outsourcing is cheaper.

I am not bashing SWA. They took a different approach and it involves heavy outsourcing. All engines and components with a large percentage of outsourcing airframe overhaul. What work did SWA bring in?

Yes I think you should not be telegraphing the next move of our negotiating committee on the internet. I think you should stop with broadcasting how screwed up you guys are in committee to the company.

I'm quite sure that 3P maintenance providers charge airlines way more than that $25.00/hr. How much does AA charge a customer for us to work on their planes. I bet it's way more than the $32/hr we make.

 

[Bob Owens]

The international is not negotiating this contract, our negotiating team is. Our pay cuts were voted in by OUR union. I appreciate Bob and the rest of the team for stepping into the breach, but I don't agree with Bob about his attack on the other presidents and negotiators. I don't think Bob should be misrepresenting what he thinks AA spends on OH or A/C purchase's.

I figure TUL/AFW should be glad that the TWU was involved in the 2003 contract other wise bankruptcy and a closure of our OH bases like the other airlines. If OH was cheaper to do in house, all the other airlines would have kept it in house. I'm sure no one knows that better then CFO's of those airlines, not some mechanic from a rival airline.

More Fox News tactics. Accusations without specifics.

If people attack me I'll attack them back, its called defense.

Would Tulsa have been outsourced? I doubt it. Why, because the reason why our competitors outsourced is because they didnt have OSMs. If you recall back in 1995 when SRPs were created nobody took a cut in pay to become an SRP, which was later called an OSM. They were brought in through system attrition, they were new hires. Could you imagine if UAL tried to force fully paid AMTs in SFO or IND to accept OSM rates of Pay? It would have been a disaster, it was easier to send it out than try and put in such a change. Now they have to wait till the recalls time runs out, or they run out of recalls so they can put in a low cost mechanic structure like AA has had for 16years. UAL outsourced and their costs went up, so much for outsourcing is cheaper.

If a substandard TA is brought back, that will be our negotiation team.

Correct, thats the way the plan works and has worked for 30 years or more. If a substandard TA is brought back the team is to blame, because they succumbed to the International. In turn the members vote out the individual members of the team but the International remains the same to do it again the next time.

The fact is you can say what you liike but the International owns the contract and controls the process. I've seen where Don wants to do something and he simply changes the rules and says that he called Rosen and Rosen says he can do that. Of course Rosen will say he can do that, he can do whatever he wants because all committees exist at the behest of the International, no committee of Locals has any authority over the International, that was highlighted both in the Seperate Locals Lawsuit and the 2003 Concessions lawsuit. Neither the Presidents or any local, or any committee has authority over the International. If the International decides they dont want to ask for a release they dont have to ask for a release, however even though they dont have to listen to the committee they would prefer that the committee not ask.

If the negotiating committee is really in control can they remove the International? NO, in fact Bobby Gless told the Fleet guys that if they did not have a quorum that they would simply take over and negotiate the deal.

 

[Bob Owens]

Outsourcing is cheaper unless you can figure a way to do it more efficiently in house. If overhead is the same, say $30/hr and the labor costs are wages of $32/hour how could it not be cheaper if you outsourced that same work to someone who gets paid $25/hour or less? Are you saying the work is inferior? Prove it. So based on wages alone outsourcing is cheaper.

I am not bashing SWA. They took a different approach and it involves heavy outsourcing. All engines and components with a large percentage of outsourcing airframe overhaul. What work did SWA bring in?

Who is putting out false comparasions? When you send something to another company what they pay their guys means nothing, its what they CHARGE you that counts. So if TIMCO is paying their guy $25/hr and AA is paying $39/hr that doesnt translate into outsource being cheaper because Timco is probably charging $95/hr for the labor. With outsourcing the company also loses control of the process and usually loses the plane for longer periods.

SWA added a line.

Yes I think you should not be telegraphing the next move of our negotiating committee on the internet. I think you should stop with broadcasting how screwed up you guys are in committee to the company.

Such as? I've broadcast what I think Don will try and do, because I dont trust him. From his staged little "Housekeeping" sessions to repeatedly referring to the companys offer that covered from 2008 to 2015 as a "four year deal" to what will happen later today. The fact is that some of the companys team started out on the Union side of the table, do you think they dont know where everyone stands?